INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT

2007-12-0262

April 17, 2008

CONTRACT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Inspector General David O. Thomas, after an investigation by Special Agent Chuck Coffin, reports as follows:

The Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) first became aware of this

request to investigate through a December 5, 2007 newspaper article in the

Indianapolis Star which outlined a letter dated December 4, 2007. Exhibit A.

The letter was written by reporting party (“RP”) Dan Parker in his official

capacity as Chair of the Indiana Democratic Party. This letter was delivered to

the OIG subsequent to the publishing of the newspaper article and a related

internet posting. Exhibits B and C.

The RP in his letter accused a Cameron Savage (“Contractor”) of violating

the Code of Ethics and requested an investigation into Contractor’s six-month

employment contract (“contract”) with the Office of the Governor and “The

Mitch for Governor Campaign Committee (“Campaign”).

Specifically, the RP in his letter requested answers to five questions which

are addressed in the below findings.

1

I.

An investigation commenced. Witnesses were interviewed, including

Contractor and multiple persons from the Office of the Governor. An interview

request was made to the RP but was declined. Exhibit D.

Documents were obtained and reviewed. These included the contract,

documents relating to the cancellation of the contract, e-mails from the relevant

parties, and the open records requests made to the Office of the Governor by the

RP and the responses thereto.

Legal research was also conducted. This included the definitions within

the Code of Ethics as alleged by RP in his requesting letter.

II.

The OIG has jurisdiction to investigate matters which may violate the

Indiana Code of Ethics. IC 4-2-7-3(3). The OIG is also “responsible for

addressing fraud, waste, abuse and wrongdoing in agencies.” IC 4-2-7-2(b). The

OIG is to conduct investigations and “recommend policies and carry out other

activities designed to deter, detect, and eradicate fraud, waste, abuse,

mismanagement, and misconduct in state government.” IC 4-2-7-3(2).

Ethics investigations are confidential unless the State Ethics Commission

determines probable cause exists for a violation or if the respondent waives

confidentiality. IC 4-2-6-4(b)(2)(E). Contractor has notified the OIG he waives

this statutory confidentiality.

2

III.

The OIG addresses the RP’s questions as presented.

1.

RP first requests an OIG investigation on:

“The amount of the contract between [Contractor] and the Governor’s Office compared to the duties outlined therein. Was it in the taxpayers’ best interest to agree to pay [Contractor] the equivalent of $140,000 a year for the services he provided? Did the contract promote government efficiency?”

Exhibit A, supra.

Findings

The RP is incorrect in alleging that the six-month contract was for an

annual amount of $140,000. The Executive Document Summary incorrectly lists

$70,000 in box six as the “total amount [of] this action,” but the contract, itself,

specifies a monthly payment of $5,833.

$5,833 x 6 months = $34,998

Exhibit E (page one of the contract, paragraph two).

This monthly amount of $5,833 also matches the actual payment by the

Office of the Governor to Contractor for his 16 days of employment.

$3,888.89 in total paid to Contractor = 16 of the 24 work days in May of 2007 @ $5,833 per month

Exhibits F, G, H, I and J. Although a subjective determination, we cannot say that an annualized

salary of $69,996 for a Communications Consultant for the Office of the

Governor is inefficient and against the taxpayers’ interests.

3

2.

RP requests an OIG investigation on a second matter:

“Any overlap between [Contractor’s] publicly funded duties and his official campaign duties. When did he begin his role with the campaign? When, if at all, was his publicly funded contract officially terminated? How much was he paid under that contract? How much was he paid by the campaign?”

Exhibit A, supra.

Findings

RP offers no evidence on this issue other than his allegation that: “[B]eginning as early as July 2007, media reports indicate that [Contractor] was publicly speaking on behalf of Gov. Daniels’ re-election campaign… [I]f the appearance that [Contractor] was simultaneously working both for a political campaign and as a publicly funded contractor in the Governor’s Office does not beget an official investigation by our office, then I’m afraid I do not understand what function your office fulfills….”

Exhibit A, supra. RP’s allegation that Contractor was employed by the Office of the

Governor in July of 2007 is incorrect. Assuming that the unidentified July 2007

statements were made as alleged, the evidence shows that Contractor and the

Office of the Governor terminated his contract on May 22, 2007, the date he

commenced his new employment with the Campaign. Exhibits F and G, supra,

and K.

These documents were supplied to the RP’s Communication Director on

December 5, 2007 by the Office of the Governor in response to the RP’s Access

to Public Records request made the day before. Exhibit L (cover letter; for

4

attachments to cover letter, see Exhibits E, F, G, H and I, supra).

A timeline of these events is as follows: May 1, 2007 Contractor begins work for the Office of the Governor. (Exhibit E, supra). May 22, 2007 Contractor ends work with the Office of the Governor and

begins work with Campaign (Exhibits F, G and L, supra).

July 2007 Unidentified statements by Contractor (Exhibit A, supra) Dec. 5, 2007 RP’s letter requesting investigation published in

Indianapolis Star article (Exhibits A and B, supra) This physical evidence (Exhibits E - J) showing these dates was further

corroborated through the interviews.

We find no evidence to support the RP’s allegation that Contractor

performed work for the Campaign while employed under contract by the Office of

the Governor and have gone beyond RP’s allegations by conducting interviews

and reviewing correspondence, documentation, and computer e-mail files. See

e.g. Exhibits B, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L.

3. RP requests the OIG to investigate a third matter:

“What deliverables were provided by [Contractor] to the State under his publicly funded contract?”

Exhibit A, supra.

Findings

In the 16 days that Contractor worked for the Office of the Governor, his

5

supervisor Betsy Burdick stated that Contractor set up a computer correspondence

generation and tracking program that has been used at the federal level, something

the Governor’s Office did not have previously. She also stated that Contractor

developed and coordinated standard language for releases to be issued by

agencies and the Governor’s Office.

Contractor’s Invoice for payment under “Services Performed” states:

“Contractor performed services enumerated in the above listed contract on file with the Office of the Governor. These duties among other things include serving as a Communications Consultant to the Office of the Governor, working with agencies on content for various publications, drafting talking points, working with constituent services on responses to inquires [sic] made to Governor’s office, attending meetings to assist in effective communication.”

Exhibit H, supra.

No evidence contradicts this evidence, including the evidence from the

interviews, correspondence, documentation, or computer e-mail files.

The RP further does not provide any evidence to the contrary. Exhibit A,

supra.

4.

RP requests the OIG to investigate a fourth matter:

“Pursuant to 40 IAC 2-1-4, was [Contractor] a state employee during the time his publicly funded contract was in effect? The definition of an ‘employee’ includes ‘an individual who contracts with an agency for personal services for more that thirty (30) hours a week for more than twenty-six (26) weeks during any one (1) year period.’

Exhibit A, supra.

Findings 40 IAC 2-1-4 as cited by the RP was overruled in Public Law 2005-222.

6

The definition of an “employee” is now found in IC 4-2-6-1(7).1

Under the former definition as cited by RP in 40 IAC 2-1-4, Contractor

was not an “employee” for purposes of applicability of the Code of Ethics.2

However, Contractor was an “employee” for purposes of the Code of

Ethics under the newer, expanded application of the Code of Ethics because he

was “an individual who contract[ed] with an agency for personal services.” IC 4-

2-6-1(7), overruling 40 IAC 2-1-4.

5.

The RP’s fifth and final request for the OIG to investigate is stated:

If [Contractor] was considered a state employee for the duration of his contract, did he violate state ethics rules with respect to prohibited political activity?

Findings

No evidence revealed that Contractor performed work for the Campaign

while employed under the contract by the Office of the Governor. The OIG

expanded its investigation beyond RP’s allegations by conducting interviews and

examining correspondence, documentation, and computer e-mail files, and found

no evidence to support RP’s contention. See e.g. Exhibits B, E, F, G, H, I, J, K

1 Public Law 2005-222 amended the law to define an “employee” for purposes of application of the Code of Ethics as follows: "Employee" means an individual, other than a state officer, who is employed by an agency on a full-time, a part-time, a temporary, an intermittent, or an hourly basis. The term includes an individual who contracts with an agency for personal services. for more than thirty (30) hours a week for more than twenty-six (26) weeks during any one (1) year period [sic].

2 Under the previous definition of an employee in 40 IAC 2-1-4, Contractor was not an “employee” because his contract period was from May 1, 2007 through October 31, 2007, this being 128 days which translates to 25 weeks and 3 days. The investigation shows that Contractor worked 7.5 hour days from Monday through Friday. This point is moot, however, since the new and expanded Code of Ethics deems him an “employee” for purposes of applicability of the Code.

7

and L.

The RP’s only allegation of an ethical violation is in the unidentified

statements by Contractor in July of 2007, more than one month after Contractor’s

separation from employment from the Office of the Governor. Exhibits F, G, and

H, supra.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above reasons, the OIG finds no violation of the Code of

Ethics.

Dated this 17th day of April, 2008.

____________________________________ David O. Thomas, Inspector General

8

Exhibit A

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

Exhibit I

Exhibit I

Exhibit I

Exhibit J

UU fJj! ZOUt) U1U H; IJ~ NlJ. ~UUJlUUJ

Process Date - JUN ~,2007

EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL PROFilE

13 DAYS

lNDIANAPOUS, .IN 46202:-QOOO

{ODD) OO(HJOOO

Mal~White vr- Caucasian

•Addre<;!; L in.:> 1Address line 2

City, State Zip Code

Telephone Nl,l!l\ber-

G¢l'1der-rdtmtityEthnlc IdentityNet R~par-t ~Birth Date I Age

_iji~o~~b~"1seniorityc'COiiipany-~ui1ded Pension?

* New HIre 1r

ooonon

New llire

Full rlm~ employee

STATE

t:EOC Job Category

Shift Pr~mium P~id? No

Not Assigned a WIG Cod~

0102o

Cl o<;:l~ NUfl\b{,r

sod ;:zl Secur ityEmploym~~t StatusEl\\ploymcnt TypeJob Titl~o ivisionDopartmentGroupLocation

shift Code

Workers Comp

--PAY DATA

P~y Fr~u~ncy ai-WecktyN(Jrm~l Hours 80.00OVertime status Exempt

Per Pay SnlaryHQurl y Rate 2Hourly RatQ 3

2884.62 * Raise/Review Date

Raise/Review nete

~$t Annual compensation

MAY 22,2007

MAY 22,2000

75,000.12

QA:XATION

Single

Single

Code Name'T'Fl'''F'iCAr flU PUlAT FlJ FED IItTH

r LC LOCAL

T Me JIlC'OFICA

r ST STATE

T VI CO UNEM

Descdl)tionFICA TAX

FEDERAL UNEMPLOYM~NT TAX

FEDERAL ~!Tl!HOlor~G TAX

lOCAL WAGE TAX

FICA MEDICARE TAX

STATE WCOME TAXEMPLOYER UNEM. CAlC

In NetYell

NO

'(~SYesYes

Yes

Plo

Sullie\:Yc~Y~syes

YesYet;

'fe"Ycs

Auth ID ,~.stat!JsFfiD

FUTA

fED

MARtN

f~\)rN

I NUt

02

00

Table OVl'!l"r-idcs

DEDUCTIONS & BENEFITS

codeD 32

a 40

(I 80DmD B2D 113D no

Name

SH\P~~PRE/tNSPERS HIPERSBAL

VAC IN

VllcslilPARK

DescriptionSIMPL( EMPLOYEE $$PRE TAX INSURANCE

PERSONAL HOURS ACCRUED

PERSONAL HOURS BALANCE

VACATION HOURS ACCRUED

VACATION HOURS aAlANC~PARKING

In Net AmolAnt/%

Y~l';

100.00Yes

26.11

No »0100.0000

UQ No

100.0000

Yes

15.00 YTD Maximum10500.00

Goal Calc Type J\ClIBa"e$-Am6unt

iloSMPIRA

$-AmountNQCl\FE1

$-Amount

NoP"l'ercent

KQSTUB$-Amount

NoP"Percent

HQSTUB$-AtilOunr

No

DIRECT DEPOSIT

(:t;loe Na/Y1C' _.Q"~,~$J:fption* NP N~T PAY BALANCE OF NET ~AV

LABOR AllOCATIONS~,."..~

PreNotcd Account Number-----

Bank Name

Labol" code

"102-2600!2.£§s.!:l.Qt iorSTI\TE-DAfHELS

A\loc%

100,oaoo~inked W/CClassificqJli:.qn

A594 ~INDIANA REPUBUCAN STATE Process • 011

Exhibit K

Exhibit L